Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Apprentice (British TV series) candidates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 20:49, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Apprentice (British TV series) candidates

List of The Apprentice (British TV series) candidates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"List of..." article seems devoted to listing all candidates from every series of The Apprentice (UK), merging everything about them into a single table. However, there are no citations given, and the information within is more or less a duplicate of what is provided on the articles covering each series of the programme. GUtt01 (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we possibly Merge this into The Apprentice (British TV series), with the condition of only mentioning the more-notable candidates? Foxnpichu (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think a merge would be appropriate or at all useful; it would actually bring the problem over to another article. On that article that is listed, there is already information regarding the winner and runner-up of each series, and any notable contestants are already listed in this template - Template:The Apprentice UK. Furthermore, there used to be infoboxes for all contestants in each series, but those were removed after it was deemed they didn't add anything notable to the article at all. GUtt01 (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, would a Redirect be better then? Foxnpichu (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be suitable. GUtt01 (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that’s what I’ll go for. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Recently in this AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Apprentice candidates (British series 1) the lists of candidates for each season were removed, although these were more in depth profiling of the candidates. Although each season has its own article and lists all the candidates are listed in there anyhow, I am not overly concerned (yet) about an amalgamated list. Ajf773 (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• "No citations" is irrelevant to this AFD, as there's no claim that the information is unverifiable, particularly since the series is itself a reliable source for who appeared on it. The nom also notes there is a template that groups these together, and there is also a Category:The Apprentice (British TV series) candidates, and no reason supporting deletion has been given as to why there should not also be a list per WP:CLN, especially since the list can be comprehensive and annotated in a way that neither the template nor category can. Grouping it together helps readers so they don't have to hop from series/season article to article to browse this information by putting it all in one place. This is why saying that a list "duplicates" information spread out over several different articles actually helps make the case for keeping it; that's the whole purpose of many lists. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admit, it is a weak reason "No citations", but the rest of the concerns is an issue. Why is it so necessary to keep such a list? What notable reason is there? It just raises more questions. GUtt01 (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a list of non-notable individuals. The bigger concern is the BLP issue for everyone named on the list. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, list of items that are themselves unfitting for an encyclopedia, and when brought together the list offers no valuable context about the items either. Fails the WP:10YEARTEST. Geschichte (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.